PAKISTAN READER

Lekshmi MK Lekshmi MK is a Research Assistant at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.

The idea of India as a “net security provider” in the Indian Ocean Region has gained increasing relevance in recent decades. The Indian Ocean Region (IOR) has emerged as a critical geopolitical arena where global trade flows, energy transport, strategic competition, and maritime governance intersect. Major portion of global energy shipments and commercial trade passes through the Indian Ocean, which makes maritime stability central not only to India’s security interests but also to the wider international order. 

From the Indian perspective, the concept of a net security provider refers to India’s ability to contribute more to regional security and stability than it consumes. This includes securing Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs), responding to humanitarian crises, countering piracy and trafficking, supporting littoral states through capacity-building, and promoting maritime cooperation. 
 

Amb PS Raghavan’s propositions on India as a Net Security Provider in the IOR
Amb PS Raghavan’s propositions on maritime security and strategic autonomy emphasise India’s responsibility to contribute to regional stability in the IOR. His framework rests on four broad propositions.

First, Amb Raghavan argues that India should function as a net security provider in the IOR. India’s geographic centrality in the Indian Ocean, expanding naval capabilities, and dependence on maritime trade naturally position it as a key stabilising actor. According to him, India cannot remain a passive observer in regional maritime affairs because instability in the IOR directly affects its economic and strategic interests.

Second, Amb Raghavan emphasises the importance of cooperative security. Rather than pursuing coercive dominance or alliance politics, India should strengthen regional security through partnerships, capacity-building, maritime coordination, and collective responses to common threats. Cooperative security includes joint naval exercises, information-sharing, disaster response cooperation, and support for smaller littoral states. This approach reflects India’s preference for consensus-building and non-hegemonic leadership.

Third, Amb Raghavan advocates a rules-based maritime order in the IOR. Freedom of navigation, respect for international law, peaceful resolution of disputes, and secure sea lanes are seen as essential for regional stability and global commerce. A rules-based maritime order reduces uncertainty, discourages unilateral coercion, and enables all states particularly smaller littoral countries to operate within predictable norms.

Fourth, Amb Raghavan maintains that India must preserve strategic autonomy while expanding security cooperation. India should engage with multiple partners, including Indo-Pacific frameworks, without entering binding military alliances. Strategic autonomy refers to India’s ability to pursue independent foreign policy decisions based on national interests rather than alliance obligations. 

Taken together, Amb Raghavan’s framework presents India as a cooperative, responsible, and rules-oriented maritime power seeking stability through partnerships rather than domination.
 

Amb PS Raghavan’s propositions on India as a Net Security Provider in the IOR: A Critique
While Amb Raghavan’s framework provides an important strategic vision, several emerging challenges complicate the practical realisation of India’s net security provider role in the IOR.
First, regional acceptance of India’s leadership in the Indian Ocean Region remains uncertain as many littoral states increasingly pursue multi-alignment strategies by simultaneously engaging with India, China, the United States, and other external powers. Infrastructure investments, defence cooperation, and economic dependencies encourage smaller states to diversify partnerships rather than rely primarily on India, limiting uncontested regional leadership.

Second, intensifying great-power competition creates structural limits to cooperative security. Although cooperative maritime security is desirable, growing rivalry among major powers weakens consensus-based regional mechanisms and constrains institutional cohesion. Maritime cooperation increasingly operates within a competitive strategic environment rather than a purely collaborative one.

Third, India faces capacity constraints and operational overstretch across a vast maritime domain extending from the eastern coast of Africa to Southeast Asia. While India’s naval and surveillance capabilities are expanding, available resources remain limited relative to the scale of its strategic ambitions, particularly when balanced against simultaneous continental security commitments. 

Fourth, the scope of maritime security has expanded beyond conventional naval concerns to include piracy, trafficking, illegal fishing, cyber vulnerabilities, maritime disasters, and climate-related threats. These non-traditional challenges require broader governance mechanisms, technological coordination, humanitarian support, and resilience-building measures in addition to naval deterrence.

Finally, strategic autonomy itself faces growing pressures. Deeper security cooperation within Indo-Pacific frameworks enhances India’s maritime capabilities and regional partnerships, yet increasing operational coordination with major powers may gradually resemble strategic alignment structures. This creates tension between expanding cooperation and preserving independent decision-making. 

Amb Raghavan’s framework remains relevant for emphasising cooperative security, regional stability, and strategic autonomy. However, India’s role as a net security provider should be understood as an evolving and contested strategic aspiration. 


 

Print

Bookmark